Britain pulls out of EU defense force

LONDON — The U.K. has withdrawn its offer to lead a battle-ready EU military force after Brexit, the first concrete example of the impact of the country's EU exit on European defense cooperation.

In a letter obtained by POLITICO, the U.K. informed the chairman of the EU military committee last Wednesday that it would no longer be the lead nation in a 1,500-strong “battlegroup” for EU defense in 2019 because of ongoing uncertainty over Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union.

Britain’s decision comes despite Prime Minister Theresa May’s insistence that the U.K.’s commitment to European security is “unconditional.” The timing of the announcement has the potential to embarrass the U.K. government in the wake of Russia’s alleged use of chemical weapons in Salisbury and Britain’s subsequent diplomatic push to secure the support of its allies in Europe and the U.S.

After initial equivocation, France, Germany and the United States rowed in behind the U.K., accusing Moscow of being culpable for the nerve agent attack in Salisbury, which has left a Russian double agent, his daughter and a British policeman fighting for their lives.

“... the offer of a battlegroup in the period immediately following our exit strikes us an unnecessary complication" — Britain’s Lieutenant General George Norton

A number of EU military powers take it in turns to provide the bulk of the troops for the so-called EU battlegroup, a force established as part of a broader push to give the EU more military clout.

No battlegroup has yet deployed to a crisis zone, but they are ready if called upon. Britain was due to take over responsibility for providing the battle-ready force in the second six months of 2019, during the Brexit transition period.

The U.K.’s decision to withdraw from the roster of EU countries offering to lead battlegroups is likely to spark concern on the Continent that London’s commitment to European security is now also uncertain, despite May’s repeated reassurance that this is not the case.

'Clarity of purpose'

In the letter informing Brussels of the U.K.’s decision, Britain’s Lieutenant General George Norton said the decision to withdraw from the program was because of the logistical problems caused by Brexit, and insisted Britain could still remain part of the program further down the line if a political agreement could be struck.

Writing to General Mikhail Kostarakos, chairman of the EU military committee, Norton said the U.K. is prepared to offer a battlegroup for the EU rota in future once the Brexit uncertainty had been cleared. He added the U.K.’s offer had always been “provisional.”

Norton said that while Britain’s withdrawal had been under discussion since September last year, it was important to clarify the decision to give the EU time to prepare.

France, Italy, Germany and Greece are the only other countries with national headquarters having sufficient capacity to command a European operation.

“Military activities, however, require clarity of purpose, and planning; not least of which involves the time that is necessary to force generate credible capabilities," the letter states. "The U.K. believes that, for the practical purposes of the time needed for the EU and member states to identify and assign a stand-by battlegroup for the second half of 2019, a decision should not be delayed. Consequently we formally withdraw our provisional offer of a battlegroup for the period 2019-20.”

The letter goes on: “Our prime minister’s unconditional commitment to European security of course stands, but the offer of a battlegroup in the period immediately following our exit strikes us an unnecessary complication."

Britain’s defense ministry did not respond to a request for comment before this article was published.

Any decision to deploy the battlegroup would be made by EU leaders at the European Council, which Britain will leave in March 2019. However, all lead battlegroup countries retain a veto over deployment.

The U.K. is one of only a handful of EU countries capable of providing battlegroup headquarters.

Britain also currently leads the EU’s counter-piracy mission “Atlanta” off the coast of Somalia, commanding the operation out of Northwood military headquarters in Hertfordshire.

France, Italy, Germany and Greece are the only other countries with national headquarters having sufficient capacity to command a European operation. The U.K., for example, is providing the headquarters for a Dutch/Belgian battlegroup in 2018.

London also plays an important role in Operation Sophia — the counter-smuggling operation in the Mediterranean that is commanded from Italian national headquarters — as well as stationing troops in Estonia to act as a deterrent to any military action by Russia.

Whether Britain continues its involvement in the EU battlegroup program after Brexit will depend on whether the U.K. can negotiate more involvement in decision-making and control of missions than is normally offered to third countries, U.K. officials said. If this proves impossible, officials say it is unlikely Britain will continue to take part in EU missions in the future.

Authors:

Related stories on these topics:

English Man

“Britain also currently leads the EU’s counter-piracy mission “Atlanta” off the coast of Somalia”

It should be stated that the UK has led OP ‘atlanta’ from the beginning and also it should also be mentioned that ‘Atlanta’ is the only (and I really mean the only) EU military operation that has been anywhere close to a success.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 5:53 AM CET

Ciapi N

The little kid is unhappy he is not let to lead the club he abruptly decided to leave.

I have a special relationship with another American boy. He has amazing chlorinated chicken for lunch. Yummy.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 8:25 AM CET

Kari Gustafsson

Do the Brits no longer want to pay for our common protection?

Posted on 3/20/18 | 8:43 AM CET

Kari Gustafsson

I must admit feeling sorry for all those remainers in the uk who have divided the UK for so long and have helped the EU, and will now have to live in an impoverished UK.
My thanks.
The important thing that has been acheived for the EU is that we can now begin to get down to the real business of trade talks and screw them into the ground. We should remember that nothings agreed until everything is agreed. The UK can still say ‘no deal’ and so void everything we have acheived so far.
We are close, with continued help from the UK remainers we can finish the UK once and for all.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 9:33 AM CET

Ghost of JB

@Kari Gustafson

“Do the Brits no longer want to pay for our common protection?”

The Brits already pay for our common defence: “Only five of NATO’s 28 members — the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K. — meet the 2% of GDP spending target.

What the Brits are not comfortable with is the EU’s military vanity project which risks undermining the single meaningful military alliance that protects the EU, and risks diverting yet more of those underfunded resources into duplicating military structures, without providing more defence capability.

We’re also not thrilled at being expected to lead and contribute to military forces that might be deployed into real world threat zones without some say in the decision making, so factor that into future defence planning.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 9:41 AM CET

Joseph Samengo-Turner

“Perfide Albion” as the French would say…unfortunately the width of the Channel remains absolute and fixed despite the desire to become another US state.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 10:22 AM CET

François P

“The U.K.’s decision to withdraw from the roster of EU countries offering to lead battlegroups is likely to spark concern on the Continent that London’s commitment to European security is now also uncertain, despite May’s repeated reassurance that this is not the case.”

This UK decision is a logical consequence of Brexit. I doubt that it will spark concern among the EU27, as this had been expected.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 10:46 AM CET

François P

“London also plays an important role in Operation Sophia — the counter-smuggling operation in the Mediterranean that is commanded from Italian national headquarters — as well as stationing troops in Estonia to act as a deterrent to any military action by Russia.”

The stationing of troops in Estonia is a NATO mission. Therefore, I don’t see why Brexit should have an impact of the participation of the UK in that mission.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 10:50 AM CET

Mike .

The last draft of the withdrawal agreement I saw barred the uk from any leadership role in any future defence missions. Given that, it would appear this was an eu decision rather than a uk one.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 10:54 AM CET

Kari Gustafsson

@François P

The UK has a large voice in NATO and is ceraintly more than able to influence NATO’s stronger members. I fear the commitment we have relied upon will not be so readily given now that we have alienated both the US and the UK.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 11:01 AM CET

Anthony Chambers

@Mike .: Thanks for pointing out the obvious…. The UK cannot lead a military operation if it is restricted from doing so during the transition….

Posted on 3/20/18 | 11:22 AM CET

François P

@Mike .

“The last draft of the withdrawal agreement I saw barred the uk from any leadership role in any future defence missions. Given that, it would appear this was an eu decision rather than a uk one.”

Typical brexiteer whining. The rule is quite simple: only EU members are allowed lead EU missions. Pretty much common sense I would say. And this was already the case before Brexit. The UK has decided to leave the EU. Please note that: it is not the EU which has decided to expel the UK. Ergo, post Brexit the UK won’t be allowed to lead EU missions. Simple logic, nothing personal.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 11:47 AM CET

Mike .

@François P

Typical brexiteer whining.

I was not expressing my own opinions on how desirable or not the situation was. The article reveals the uk pulling out of a military commitment and infers a reason for it. I was simply pointing out that the eu insisted on terms in the withdrawal agreement that prevented the uk from going ahead.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 12:07 PM CET

Finn (of Suomi)

@Mike

Indeed,

Your point is the only one to make — and it is the correct one.

UK simply acknowledged that they will not be able to lead (read: allowed to lead) said battle group — and to be lead by others is a bit too ‘hurtful’ right now.

Also, the UK, after years of blocking any and all defense initiatives in the EU, now want to participate in PESCO, since they couldn’t veto the project any longer.

I better not express what I think about them regarding European defense policies (among other things).

Posted on 3/20/18 | 12:10 PM CET

Kari Gustafsson

@Finn (of Suomi)

We cannot rely on the UK or the US and the only ones who can be trusted are the Germans who should rearm to meet the challenge. Memeber states should integrate their defenses and be placed under German command. It is their destiny to protect europe.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 12:17 PM CET

Mike .

@Kari Gustafsson

I fear the commitment we have relied upon will not be so readily given now that we have alienated both the US and the UK.

As someone in the uk who literally lives between two of europes largest US military bases I’ll attempt to answer this. For the US there has been a long standing feeling that europe neglects defence and just expects the US to pay for it. The last refusal by germany to meet its 2% NATO spending target despite its healthy government finances went down particularly badly. When Trump announced his steel and aluminium tariffs he went on to say he might exclude allies that met their nato spending commitments. US attention is also moving east and long term the US is downgrading its european capability. One of those bases near me is now closing. The alienation of Trump can only accelerate this.
As for the uk, its geographical location means that for practical reasons it will have a far thicker skin. It would take a lot for it to withdraw from european defence commitments. Public pressure might do it if violence in NI returns and the EU is seen to be responsible. Certainly it might be harder to justify existing uk troop deployments to defend eu states.

Jack Boot

Finn (of Suomi)

@Kari Gustafsson

That is not possible for two reasons (i) it is politically impossible for Germany and the rest of the EU to accept (ii) it would make no sense in practical terms either.

At the moment the Finnish army can get more boots on the ground than Germany could, if such dire situation would present itself. (Of course, such ridiculous state of affairs would only last for so long, if the said crunch time came, but you get the drift.)

The European defense project (PESCO) is rather theoretical as it is, but with clear head and focused policies can remedy the situation in, say, a decade or so.

It would require the consolidation of European defense industries — nationally sensitive stuff, to succeed.

I am mildly optimistic.

Yet, I do agree with your main point. We must be able to defend ourselves without US input. UK is a bit player — and with Brexit they will become almost insignificant.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 12:44 PM CET

Mike .

@Kari Gustafsson

Member states should integrate their defenses and be placed under German command. It is their destiny to protect europe.

I fear you have pulled the pin on a verbal grenade. I shall withdraw to a safe distance and wish you well 🙂

Posted on 3/20/18 | 12:50 PM CET

Finn (of Suomi)

@Jack

Read the effing articles before you get too excited. A newspaper headline does not represent the EU’s stance.

Again, we seem to stand by HMG, no ifs no buts. What we do not do, is, we do not take every utterance by HMG as the gospel. You do not have the trust.

Last time you ‘knew’ for dead certain, that some mad fellow had WMDs — your government lied.

There is that.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 12:52 PM CET

Kari Gustafsson

@Finn (of Suomi)
“At the moment the Finnish army can get more boots on the ground than Germany ”

There would be no need for boots on any ground.
If Germany (or the EU) took control of French nuclear weapons our safety could be garaunteed.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 1:05 PM CET

François P

Kari Gustafsson is another false flag troll in the style of Captain Europe.

Priscilla du Bleu

The UK will be a third country soon…. why so you whine for the evil EU27 to play the alky of a loser = brekkie-UK ?

Logic?

Go and rely on the drumpf and your former commonwealth victims.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 1:19 PM CET

NK .

In English: Britain is mumbling to sign a trade deal on their terms while using defense cooperation as a bate. Arguing the defense logistics is not feasible due to hard borders and trade deal as the per EU27. Hypothetically this also serves in the best interests of warmongers, also collateral of which eliminates totally the idea for the creation of european defense force in EU27.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 1:19 PM CET

Priscilla du Bleu

@François P
“Kari Gustafsson is another false flag troll in the style of Captain Europe.

Don’t feed the trolls.”

Actually, Francois, all of them are the Germany obsessed little booty:-D.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 1:22 PM CET

Kari Gustafsson

@NK .
“In English: Britain is mumbling to sign a trade deal on their terms while using defense cooperation as a bate. ”

We must be prepared to defend ourselves and this will deny the brits leverage.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 1:27 PM CET

Anthony Chambers

@Kari Gustafsson: Give it a rest. Yes it would be nice if the Germans paid their fair share of European defence, but the UK will defend Europe if required. Obviously we are not a super power and have not been for 70 years (arguably 100 years).

All they are asking is for someone else to take this turn and then the UK can take it’s turn in the rotation once things are sorted out. There is no need to read too much into this.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 1:37 PM CET

Kari Gustafsson

I am saying because of brexit, british interests are not the same as EU interests and we cannot rely on you to act in our inteters first.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 1:52 PM CET

Finn (of Suomi)

@Kari Gustafsson

No war has ever been won without boots on the ground — nuclear deterrent is no different.

Besides, to solely rely on such a blunt instrument of death would have no use for us, as it is no good (read: useless) on the modern battlefields, where asymmetric – and proxy warfare, non-state actors and mixture of all above is the name of the game. Often blending in urban settings, to top it of.

WMDs are generally speaking worthless weapons of war. Very expensive to make and maintain and they will only deter ‘rational’ state actors, think MAD doctrine.

The EU has a need for ‘full spectrum’ capabilities, if it intends to secure its own territory and keep trouble at bay near its borders — and a blue sea navy, if it has intentions to secure shipping lines etc..

I am a military man by my craft and profession (retired), I do know what I am talking about.

Your point, whilst theoretically valid, is pretty much the last thing we ought to do.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 2:53 PM CET

Finn (of Suomi)

@Anthony Chambers

Anthony,

You and I could/can agree on so much, yet we stand on the absolute opposite sides of the Brexit debacle.

Makes me truly depressed, as I just can’t understand your stance and reasoning with regards to said Brexit.

Too damn sad.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 3:04 PM CET

Stan

@Finn (of Suomi)
“UK simply acknowledged that they will not be able to lead (read: allowed to lead) said battle group — and to be lead by others is a bit too ‘hurtful’ right now.”

You were doing so well then immaturity kicked in… You can’t be the lead nation if you can’t be the lead nation.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 3:11 PM CET

Finn (of Suomi)

@Stan

Did the UK propose to supply manpower for the battle group, even if they do not lead?

If not, my point stands.

And sure, I can do immature, no probs, just not my principal MO.

Can you comment with substance on matters — or are you just a bumper-sticker kinda guy — all hat, no cattle?

Posted on 3/20/18 | 3:51 PM CET

Stan

@Finn (of Suomi)

I did comment on the article to reiterate the sensible responses that have been posted already by @Mike, @Anthony @François P et al. Everything else is just nonsense.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 4:06 PM CET

Finn (of Suomi)

@Stan

I cannot see any other comment of yours. Maybe Politico’s system is, again, having its own mind.

Anyway, did the UK offer the troops or not?

Posted on 3/20/18 | 4:19 PM CET

X KM

@Kari Gustafsson,
hmmm, you just waffle nonsense.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 4:25 PM CET

Stan

Finn (of Suomi)

Wouldn’t have thought so, it probably doesn’t work like that. Whichever country takes it over will organise any UK involvement or not.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 4:38 PM CET

Peter Monta

Well other than getting the name wrong and most of the facts, right you are English Man. The name of the operation is Atalanta and its scope is limited primarily to escorting relief shipments. At this it has been successful. But the main anti-piracy operations are the American led 151 Task Force and, of course the NATO Operation Ocean Shield.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 5:02 PM CET

Tony Brown

Francois and others are right. Britain is not being petulant, it is simply not allowed to lead any EU initiative such as this. The headline and some commentators here are simply being mischievous.

Here is the text from the Institute for Government;

“The UK Government has indicated its desire to maintain close engagement with the EU on defence after Brexit. ….In September 2017 the Government published a future partnership paper on the issue of foreign policy, defence and development which expanded on this sentiment.

In January 2018 the Commission published slides, which set out its considerations for the future relationship with the UK on defence and security. The slides noted that it’s in the EU’s interest to continue cooperation in these areas. However, they also note that the UK cannot continue to host EU military operational headquarters (Operation Atalanta is currently run out of the UK) or remain in command of EU operations…..

How might continued cooperation work?

The Government’s paper suggests that the UK wishes to continue to participate in some CSDP missions as a third party”

….The (UK) Government is proposing a deeper level of cooperation than these agreements, which would allow the UK to participate in both the detailed operational planning for CSDP missions as well as the development of each mission’s mandate, the legal basis upon which action is taken.”

Posted on 3/20/18 | 5:37 PM CET

lib crit

the UK used to be relevant

Posted on 3/20/18 | 6:07 PM CET

Peter Monta

That’s also interest Ghost of JB. Since becoming part of the EU Britain has opposed the formation of an EU based military force. Even though it made perfect sense to do so. Most of the smaller EU nations even if they spent the recommended 2 percent would have to allocate most of it just to military infrastructure most of which would be a useless duplication. How many military staff colleges do you need? Twenty eight? What you spend money on for defense matters as much as how much you spend? How useful are Britain’s two new multi billion pound planeless aircraft carriers?

So why would the EU rely on or expect support from Britain in such an endeavor as described here. None really, that would be unrealistic. Nor should NATO which mostly includes the same nations.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 6:15 PM CET

Darius Na

UK has always been a fair weather, unreliable, treacherous, leave-you-behind-for-the-bear “ally”. Always. So no surprise there.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 8:01 PM CET

Joe

It’s ludicrous to say the UK as withdrawn in a manner suggesting it has taken the hump & is off with its toys. It is the EU that has made the decision & forced it to it’s logical conclusion. You don’t give your Rolls Royce to the kids across the street to play with if you aren’t able to drive it, you lock it up in the garage until you can. Just spent god knows how much on new carriers hey lets let the EU take them out to play with, I don’t think so, if we arent commanding them no one will be.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 8:10 PM CET

Tony Brown

Darius NA

You made that comment before and I challenged you to give some examples after researching how many British dead lie in European graveyards trying to defend the continent. You failed to respond.

You are obviously a Russian troll and not worth engaging with

Posted on 3/20/18 | 10:09 PM CET

Alan

Bald reality is that NATO has & always will be UK’s priority as far as defence goes.

Wonder what will happen to the RAF Chinooks currently assigned to work with the French in N & W Africa?
Is it really true that the UK is the only European country (excluding Russia) to have such heavy lift helicopter resources?

Posted on 3/20/18 | 10:23 PM CET

Peter (The Grumpy one)

I love reading all the drama queen troll comments making a mountain out of a mole hill.
It makes perfect sense for the uk to withdraw from the Eu defence rotation as how could it supply personnel and equipment with no say as to how they would be used??
That’s not to say that the uk wouldn’t wholeheartedly support and cooperate in missions of mutual interest.
Come on people act like grownups.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 10:32 PM CET

WJ B

@ Finn, I presume you are a Finn. The Finns have never been part of NATO, why is that?
Scared of the Russians? In WW2, the Finns were allies of the Germans, the SS fought alongside of the Finns to defend Finland from the Russians. When it was clear that the Germans would lose the war, the Finns turned on their German friends killing hundreds
even those that had surrendered. Not the kind of ally or friend I would want.

John Brown

This may be the view of the current PM but this is not the view of a majority of the UK population who see :

An EU where most nations, including the richest nation, are refusing to pay their fair share of NATO’s costs.

An EU that is committed to open borders with the ME and Africa.

An EU that is led by Germany whose Chancellor believes that “Islam belongs to Germany”.

Posted on 3/20/18 | 11:36 PM CET

Craig Lamont

A couple of things:
The UK in agreement with the EU has to forgo any leadership commitments as per the instructions within the withdrawal agreement. Done.
The EU will have to increase spending on Defence. Germany is the only Country with enough money in the bank to effectively do this, however it will not sit well with many of her neighbours, watching it re- militarise on a large scale. France is incapable of defending herself and has no money spare to meet the NATO minimum, France relies on the unity of the EU 28 and her nuclear deterrent to allow it to swagger around in the international arena, Poland and the UK have committed to working together beyond Brexit in defence and security and I suspect many other countries may also seek to follow the Polish lead.

Posted on 3/21/18 | 7:52 AM CET

Tony Brown

Craig

Some of us have been trying to point out that the EU has -because of their rules-decided we cannot head up these various groups.

The UK is active in a variety of other roles-including of course contributing our full subscription to the only effective military force Nato.

But in addition not only are we active in the Baltics but have signed a recent agreement with places such as Finland

“Defence Secretary of the UK: JEF forces ready to assist Finland – “Finland is not alone”

On Friday in Stockholm, Finland will sign an agreement on joining the 10 000-strong rapid response forces led by the UK.

The JEF (Joint Expeditionary Force) can be deployed to military operations anywhere in the world, including Finnish soil.

The UK’s contribution to the forces, which will be fully operational by the end of 2018, will include the lead commando, airborne, armoured, aviation, air and maritime task groups.

The UK Secretary of State for Defence Michael Fallon says in an interview with Lännen Media that the JEF can be deployed more rapidly and flexibly in an actual situation than the combat forces of NATO or the EU.”

It would be good if people here actually recognisee the misleading headline. We can not lead EU defence forces. We are very active in other defence spheres though

Posted on 3/21/18 | 8:25 AM CET

Craig Lamont

@ Tony Brown
I fully agree with you, the UK will always remain an active player in the defence of Europe and any suggestion otherwise is, at best misleading and at worst downright inflammatory.

Posted on 3/21/18 | 11:34 AM CET

Perry Winkle

@English Man

You’ve made a good point. Tops!

Posted on 3/21/18 | 12:32 PM CET

Joe

Alan
Bald reality is that NATO has & always will be UK’s priority as far as defence goes.

Wonder what will happen to the RAF Chinooks currently assigned to work with the French in N & W Africa?
Is it really true that the UK is the only European country (excluding Russia) to have such heavy lift helicopter resources?

I thought the Greeks had them & I’d be surprised if Spain & Italy didn’t have them on their Aircraft Carriers. It seems the French don’t have Chinooks & they are getting a lift from the Canadians & the UK to plug their capability gap. As we were only ever giving them a dig out rather than leading we will still be there helping them out. I would expect us to give notice though of our intention to withdraw from the EU’s counter-piracy mission & hand over to the EU in a timely fashion to make sure the EU does not have to break it’s own red lines.

Posted on 3/21/18 | 12:38 PM CET

Perry Winkle

Brexit doesn’t make Great Britain a foe.
And another thing; this thread’s reminding me of Mind Your Language

Posted on 3/21/18 | 12:40 PM CET

Alan

@Joe

Quite right – Greece, Holland, Italy & Spain apparently have Chinooks – all members of PESCO?

Posted on 3/21/18 | 3:57 PM CET

William Beesley

The British have an understandable reluctance to pay for EU operations without having the control. After all, it’s been this way for years, but thankfully not for much longer

Posted on 3/21/18 | 4:53 PM CET

William Beesley

The British have an understandable reluctance to pay for EU operations without having the control. After all, it’s been this way for years, but thankfully not for much longer.

Posted on 3/21/18 | 4:58 PM CET

Gaylen Lovelace

—-No “EU” Defense/Security Force will ever (at least over the next decade) come close to the capabilities of NATO in defending the EU and defusing potential aggressors….Countries such as Germany—who certainly have the capital to finance a decent EU military—are implacably ideologically opposed to spending on self- (or joint) defense…

—-The bottom line is that NATO is “the only game in town,” and that the U.K. is second only to the US in its influence on the organisation…..I have an American brother-in-law who works closely with NATO, and who, along with two of his Congressional friends, has said that the “UK is the country the US military is —by far—most comfortable dealing with,” as they feel that British military training is “first-rate,” and that Britain’s military leaders are among “the best in the world.” Aside from the fact the two countries have had close working relationships for years, and have built a level of trust between them that can’t be replicated by other countries, it will be the remaining EU member states—and their citizens—who will suffer most in the event of a military threat, if they decide to “sideline” the one EU country with the loudest voice in NATO….

Posted on 3/21/18 | 7:05 PM CET

Priscilla du Bleu

@John Brown” AKA Jack Boot the paranoid German hater …
“An EU where most nations, including the richest nation, are refusing to pay their fair share of NATO’s costs”

My love, why don’t you brekkies simply pull the UK out of NATO as well if you dislike her other members that much, now that you’re at the pulling out of ….

Posted on 3/22/18 | 6:36 AM CET

Nobb Holiday

Where delighted but also displeased to hear this may be temporary. We know Germany is working in league with Russia in trying push out NATO from Europe for their 30 shillings worth of power in Nord stream 2 where ultimate control of Europe’s gas rests with Russia. We will take back full control of all our seas and territories and re-establish an alternative power in Europe, one its people will be prepared to tear down Germany’s (EU) iron barred doors to join. German border guards in Ireland or Gib don’t care us either.